Opinion
3:22cv5101/MCR/EMT
05-17-2022
JOHNNIE LEE JORDAN, JR., Plaintiff, v. BRITTNEY SEXTON and CARSON TAYLOR, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Michael J. Frank United States Magistrate Judge
This prisoner civil rights case is before the court on Plaintiff's “Motion to Request Immediate Emergency Assistance From the Court” (ECF No. 6). The case was referred to the magistrate judge for issuance of all preliminary orders and any recommendations to the district court regarding dispositive matters and motions for injunctive relief. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(C); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an inmate of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC), housed at Okaloosa Correctional Institution (see ECF No. 6). Plaintiff's complaint names two correctional officers at Okaloosa C.I. as Defendants, Classification Officer Brittney Sexton and Correctional Officer Carson Taylor (see ECF No. 1 at 1-3). Plaintiff asserts Defendants Sexton and Taylor violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him and interfering with his access to the courts (id. at 5-10). Plaintiff seeks monetary damages against Defendants in their individual capacities (id. at 2-3, 11).
The court refers to the page numbers automatically assigned by the court's electronic filing system.
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief seeks an order enjoining “FDOC security staff” from retaliating against him (see ECF No. 6 at 1). Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling “FDOC” to provide him “all paperwork that is allegedly stored in property” (id.).
II. DISCUSSION
To establish entitlement to a preliminary injunction, a movant must demonstrate:
(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim;
(2) a substantial likelihood of suffering irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted;
(3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs any injury the nonmovant might suffer from the injunction; and
(4) the injunction would not disserve the public interest.Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); In re Gateway Radiology Consultants, P.A., 983 F.3d 1239, 1254 (11th Cir. 2020). “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. Bethesda Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 887 F.2d 1535, 1537 (11th Cir. 1989); Bloedorn v. Grubs, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir. 2011) (emphasizing that a temporary restraining order or “preliminary injunction in advance of trial is an extraordinary remedy”).
The chief function of a preliminary injunction “is to preserve the status quo” between the parties “until the merits of the controversy can be fully and fairly adjudicated.” Northeastern Fla. Chapter of Ass'n of Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 896 F.2d 1283, 1284 (11th Cir. 1990); All Care Nursing Serv., 887 F.2d at 1537; United States v. State of Ala., 791 F.2d 1450, 1457 n.9 (11th Cir. 1986). This necessitates that the persons from whom the injunctive relief is sought be parties to the underlying action. In re Infant Formula Antitrust Litig., MDL 878 v. Abbott Lab'ys, 72 F.3d 842, 842-43 (11th Cir. 1995) (denying motion for TRO against non-party for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
By separate order, the undersigned determined the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and required Plaintiff to amend his complaint (see ECF No. 5). Plaintiff correspondingly fails to meet the first prerequisite for injunctive relief. Additionally, the parties to this action are two employees of the FDOC sued only in their individual capacities; yet Plaintiff seeks temporary injunctive relief against the FDOC and “FDOC security staff, ” which encompasses non-parties.
Plaintiff has not clearly established his burden of persuasion as to the four requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. The District Court, therefore, should deny his motion for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief (ECF No. 6) be DENIED.
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES
Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within fourteen days of the date of the Report and Recommendation. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only and does not control. An objecting party must serve a copy of the objections on all other parties. A party who fails to object to the magistrate judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and recommendation waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See 11th Cir. Rule 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.